All Rights Reserved

This week I put in a call to Stacy Welling, the Regional Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to ask why there were no positions posted on the current legislation page of their website?

These are the responses to bills before the State Legislature that directly impact the operation of the MDNR or an agency tied to the use of natural resources. The department had previously provided a position, pro or con, to pending laws that would either support their mission or detract from their ability to work.

Her answer was simple. “We can’t do that any more.” I’ve asked around and it seems to be a policy within all the agencies in our state. It is intended to reduce conflict between legislators and these offices.

Previously, one could go on line to see what the MDNR felt about potential changes being proposed in the Senate or House, much like a summary still available from the respective branches under each bill after it has been introduced and or gone to committee for review. There are still references to other agencies within the state contained on the page when issues don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the MDNR. They mostly deal with Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, the State Police or Department of Management and Budget.

But on those items clearly impacting natural resources and outdoor recreation, today you’ll find a blank. In fact there will be 37 out of 69 such blanks and it is frustrating to see.

The MDNR is bound to manage our natural resources by sound science. There are statutory requirements and boilerplate language that dictate minimums and maximums of efforts within their jurisdiction. One would think they’d be able to share a position of how a proposed law would impact these goals, again in a positive or negative way.

I don’t ever recall reading a presentation that was derogatory towards any one individual legislator, in fact there were perhaps equally shared times of the MDNR being in favor, against or neutral to the issues. On those outside of their jurisdiction they’d refer the reader to that particular agency most impacted which, as I stated before, continues today.

Another spin-off from the change in policy is how, as usual, someone takes the intent a little further than intended.

In a recent conversation regarding a bill I’ve been monitoring, it came back to me that “the MDNR doesn’t oppose the bill, in fact they’re providing alternatives to help it get passed.”

This was part of my reason for calling Regional Coordinator Welling.

The eastern and western Citizen Advisory Councils (CAC’s) will have met recently or will be meeting in July. Contained on their agendas are pieces of legislation for which they will consider support. When asked if she would make a recommendation to the CAC, Welling indicated that she could not do more than provide the basic information. However there will be opportunity for someone to address the respective boards, either from within the council or general public, and attempt to sway them on the vote.

This doesn’t make sense. In fact it is frustrating to watch and I can think of one reaction to it that mimics what Vince Lombardi was quoted (and recorded) as saying one particular Sunday when the Green Bay Packers didn’t seem to be on top of their game. He said, “What the hell is going on out there!!!!”

While representatives from the MDNR can provide testimony before the committees of the legislature, they cannot project that testimony as their official position on bills.

I know that they would most likely not support House Bills 4021 and 4028 (Agema), as they would divert the intended use of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund away from its original intent: to expand recreational opportunities throughout the state by acquiring land and access for outdoors enthusiasts.

They would have supported House Bill 4111 (Rendon) which has become law and will allow use of certain volunteer groups for habitat work on state lands, something that had been previously against the law when so many other projects were permitted.

The MDNR would most likely remain neutral to House Bill 4259 (Cotter) that would amend the traditional opening day of the firearm deer hunting season to begin on the Saturday closest to November 15^th, an issue that is very close to 50/50 with the hunting public and has failed from support for the traditional opener since I can remember.

There are key issues on the docket that will be under consideration in this legislature that will be history making.

Whether it is policy for granting easements across state owned land, or a funding mechanisms to assure cross country ski trails are maintained throughout Michigan, all the way to whether or not we’ll continue to see “sporting swine” on game ranches in our state, I think it important to have all sides of the story available so the public can make a rational decision on what, if any, legislation they choose to support.